Download:
pdf |
pdfAIl-'f 2-0 7 S'Gc.
tt
'1:
.
Supplemental Attachment E.8.b.
September 1992
-II'
,
,;:v~
,Jl)
-
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT DF CDMMERCE
Natlona. Dceanlc and Atmospheric Admlnlstret:lon
NATIONAL MAFtINE FISHERIES SERVICE
1335 East:-West: Highway
Silver Spring, MO 20910
THE DIFtECTOR
AUG 28 1992
Mr. Phillip Anderson
Chairman, Pacific Fishery
Management Council
Metro Center
~ooo s.w. First Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97210
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Enclosed is our biological op1n10n regarding the impacts of
fishing conducted under the Pacific coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (groundfish FMP) on species listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
There have been two previous biological opinions that considered
the effect of the groundfish fishery on species listed under the
ESA. The first biological opinion (August 10, 1990) considered
the impacts of thegroundfish fishery on marine mammals, sea
turtles, and Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. A
second opinion (November 26, 1991) considered the impact of the
whiting fishery on Sacramento winter-run chinook. The purpose of
this biolOgical opinion is to provide a more comprehensive review
of the effects ~f fishing conducted under the groundfish FMP on
salmon species listed under the ESA. In particular, the opinion
considers (1) new information regarding the incidence of salmon
bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery, (2) an evaluation of the
effect of the whiting fishery on all four of the listed salmon
species, and (3) a review of the impacts of other components of
the groundfish fishery.
The biological opinion concludes that impacts of fishing
conducted under the groundfish FMP on Sacramento River winter-run
chinook and Snake River sockeye and spring/summer chinook salmon
are negligible. The estimated bycatch of Snake River fall
chinook salmon is most likely on the order of a few tens of fish
per year. Based on the available information, NMFS concluded
that operation of the fishery under the groundfish FMP is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species •
•
THE ASSISTANT ADMNISTRATOR
FOR FlSHEFtIES
i
Il
Ut
--
,
...t.
\)
~
~
Q,
~
a
1
"it
f
t;'
.G
'
"
~
2
~i
We appreciate the efforts of members of the Council in providing
the necessary information, and look forward to your continued
cooperation in future consultations.
-
Sincerely,
,:
{d::~
'.
".
'1'ABLB OP COB'l'BB'l'S
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
SBC'1'ION 7 CONSUL'1'ATION
Aqencies:
Pacific Fishery Management Council
National Marine Fisheries Service
Activit!':
Fishing Conducted under the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the
California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish
Fishery
Consultation Con4ucte4 b!,1
•
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Region
I. Background ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••
1
II. Proposed Activity ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2
III. Listed Species and Critical Habitat ••• ~ •••••••••••••••••
4
IV. Biological Information •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A. Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon •••••••••••
B. Snake River Sockeye Salmon •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
C. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon •••••••••••.••
D. Snake River Fall ~hinook Salmon ••••••••••••••••••••••
4
4
5
5
6
V. Assessment of Impacts •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A. Description of Fishery •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
B. Salmon Bycatch by Gear Type ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1.a. Midwater Trawl ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
i. Description of Pacific Whiting Resource •••••
ii. Description of Pacific Whiting Fishery ••••
iii. Salmon Bycatch in the Whiting Fishery ••••
iv.· Annual Variability in Bycatch •••••••••••••
v. Salmon Bycatch by Shorebased Vessels •••••••
vi. Expected Distribution of Fishery in 1992 ••
'vii. Expected Bycatch Rates in 1992 •••••••••••
viii. Expected Salmon Bycatch in 1992 •••••••••
1.b. Bottom Trawl ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1.c. Shrimp Trawl ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2 • Pot Gear '. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••
3. Hook-and-Line ••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••
4. Other Gear ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
8
8
12
·12
13
14
16
16
17
18
18
21
25
25
25
26
VI. Species Specific Impacts •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A. Sacramento River winter-Run Chinook Salmon •••••••••••
B. Snake River Sockeye Salmon •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
C. Snake River Spring/summer Chinook Salmon •••••••••••••
D. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon ••••••••••••••••••••••
26
26
28
28
29
~
VII. CUmulative Effects ••• ~ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 33
i
VIII. Conclusion •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A. Impacts of Trawl Fisheries •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1. Sacramento River winter-Run Chinook Salmon ••••••
2. Snake River Sockeye Salmon ••••••••••••••••••••••
3. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ••••••••
4. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon •••••••••••••••••
B. Impacts of Other Gear Types ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
IX. Reinitiation of Consultation
.............................
X. Conservation Recommendations
33
33
33
34
34
35
36
37
37
XI. Incidental Take Statement •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41
A. Anticipated Incidental Take •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41
B. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and
Conditions for Implementation •••••••••••••••••••••• 43
XII. References
46
XIII. Figures
49
•
ii
•
•
4'
~,
•
BRDARGERED SPECIES ACT--SBCTION 7 CONSULTATION
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Agencies:
Pacific Fishery Management Council
National Marine Fisheries Service
Activity:
Fishing Conducted under the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the
California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish
Fishery
Consultation Conducted By:
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Region
Date Issued:
I. Background
There have been two previous biological opinions that considered
the effect of ftshing conducted under the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon,
and Washington groundfish fishery (groundfish FMP) on species
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The first
biological opinion (NMFS 1990: August 10, 1990) reported the
impacts of the groundfish fishery on marine mammals, sea turtles,
and Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon (SRWRC). A second
opinion (NMFS 1991a: November 26, 1991) considered the impact of
the whiting fishery on SRWRC in more detail and briefly addressed
the effects on Snake River sockeye salmon which were newly listed
(November 20, 1991) just as the opinion was being finalized.
Since the completion of this latter opinion, Snake River
spring/summer and fall chinook salmon were listed as a threatened
species (April 22, 1992) and there has been a proposed change in
the status of the SRWRC from threatened to endangered
(57 FR 27416; June 19, 1992). This opinion supersedes those
portions of the November 26, 1991, and August 10, 1990, opinions
that addressed impacts on SRWRC.
•
The purpose of this biological opinion is to provide a more
comprehensive review of the effects of fishing conducted under
the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) groundfish FMP on
salmon species listed under the ESA. In particular, the opinion
considers (1) new information regarding the incidence of salmon
bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery, (2) an evaluation of the
effect of the whiting fishery on all four of the listed salmon
species, and (3) a review of the impacts of other components of
the groundfish fishery. Also provided in this opinion is
available information regarding Canadian groundfish fisheries.
Although these fisheries are not subject to m~nagement under the
~.
(
2
qroundfish FMP, the information is presented to provide a more
comprehensive review of west coast qroundfish fisheries.
This bioloqical opinion is one in a series of formal and informal
consultations and conferences related to the effect of fisheries
and harvest actions on listed salmon species. The effects of
fishing under the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska groundfish FMPs
on the four listed species were considered in a conference and
informal consultation (February 20, 1992). The effects of
various components of the salmon fisheries on the listed species
have also been reviewed. On March 1, 1992, NMFS issued a
biological opinion that considered the effects of fisheries
conducted under the PFMC FMP for the Commercial and Recreational
Salmon Fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California on SRWRC salmon. A subsequent opinion (NMFS 1992a;
May 1, 1992) considered the effects of 1992 fisheries conducted
under the salmon FMP on the three listed species from the Snake
River. There have also been a series of formal and informal
consultations and conferences regarding the effects on Snake
River species from-1992 fisheries in the Columbia River conducted
according to provisions of the Columbia River FMP. Winter and
spring season fisheries were addressed in conference letters
dated February 21, 1992, and April 3, 1992, respectively. A
biological opinion regarding summer and fall season fisheries was
issued on June 12, .1992, with a subsequent addendum dated June
30, 1992. An opinion regarding a fishery in Idaho proposed by
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes was issued June 29, 1992.
The biological assessment for the groundfish fishery was prepared
by Dr. Richard Methot, Chairman, PFMC Groundfish Management Team
and was provided in two parts. The first part summarized
available information on salmon bycatch in the Pacific whiting
fishery (Methot 1992a)1 the second report summarized the bycatch
data for Pacific coast bottom trawl fisheries (Methot 1992b).
Additional input was provided by Dr. Ken Henry, Chairman, PFMC
Salmon Technical Team. While preparing this biological opinion,
NMFS considered the information provided in the biological
assessment and other information available from the scientific
literature and experts in the field of salmon biology.
II. Proposed Activity
The PFMC proposes to continue management of the qroundfish
fishery under the qroundfish FMP, including proposed
•
3
Amendment 6 to that FMP (57 FR 32499, July 22, 1992), as well as
appropriate implementation of regulations and other management
actions consistent with the FMP. The FMP establishes a framework
for the management of the groundfish fisheries off the coasts of
california, Oregon, and Washington by both Federal and state
governments. The purpose of Amendment 6 is to implement a
limited entry program. The primary objective of the limited
entry program is to reduce harvesting capacity of the Pacific
coast groundfish fishery. Each vessel involved in the limited
entry fishery will be required to obtain a Federal permit. Only
those vessels with a specified level of previous participation
will be issued a permit. Amendment 6 will not directly effect
the amount of groundfish taken or regulatory mechanisms used to
specify when or where fisheries may occur. 'One of the secondary
objectives is to reduce bycatch and waste, but there are no
provisions of the plan that address bycatch issues directly •.
The groundfish fisheries target many different species using a
variety of gear types and fishing strategies. Current
regulations include quotas, seasonal restrictions, gear
requirements, area closures, and trip limits. Specific
regulations are recommended annually under the authority of the
FMP. The PFMC monitors the progress of the various fisheries as
the season progresses and has the authority under the framework
plan to make inseason adjustments as necessary to ensure
compliance with harvest guidelines and other management
objectives of the FMP.
•
This biologicab opinion provides a general review of the
anticipated impacts of the groundfish fishery under the FMP and
proposed Amendment 6 on listed salmon species rather than being
specific to a particular year's planned fishery. The plan allows
for some flexibility in the future management of the fishery.
However, this biological opinion is based on estimated impacts
and the expectation that future impacts will be similar to or
less than those anticipated here. To the extent that impacts on
listed species resulting from future management actions or
impacts resulting from operation of the fishing during a .
particular year are the same or less than those analyzed in this
opinion, further conSUltation may be unnecessary.
•
4
III. Listed Species and critical Habitat
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), Snake River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka),
Snake River spring/summer chinook and Snake River fall chinook
salmon <-Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are the listed species that may
be affected adversely by the proposed activity. Critical habitat
has not yet been designated for these species.
IV. Biological Information
A. Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon
For detailed information regarding the status of Sacramento River
winter-run chinook (SRWRC), see 55 FR 46515 (November 5, 1990)
and 57 FR 27416 (June 19, 1992). There are four runs or races of
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento
River, California: the fall-run, late fall-run, winter-run, and
spring-run. The winter-run (so called -because of the timing of
its upstream spawning migration) is considered a "species" within
the definition of the ESA (52 FR 6041; February 27, 1987).
The best data on long-term trends in abundance for SRWRC are the
annual estimates of spawning run size made by the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) based on dam counts at Red
Bluff Dam. These annual estimates show a decline in the average
run size from 84,000 fish in the years 1967-1969 to about 2,000
for the years 1982-1984. The run size ranged from 2,000 to 4,000
from 1984-1988, but then dropped precipitously to 549, 441, and
191 in the years 1989 to 1991, respectively.
winter-run chinook exit the ocean from early November to mid-May
with the majority of fish leaving from February to early March.
There are few data available on the ocean distribution of winter
run fish. The only direct information comes from a fin clip
study conducted from 1969 to 1971 (Hallock and Fisher 1985).
These data were used in developing the Winter Chinook Ocean
Harvest Model (CDFG 1989) that is used to analyze the relative
impacts of fishery regulation options in the waters of
California. The model uses the assumption that all ocean fishery
impacts on winter-run chinook occur off California and southern
Oregon. The abundance of SRWRC relative to other stocks in
northern Oregon and Washington fisheries has not been estimated,
but would be low compared to the Eureka area and decrease from
south to north.
••
•
5
B. Snake River Sockeye Salmon
For detailed information on the Snake River sockeye salmon's
life history, see Waples et ale (1991a) and 56 FR 5'8619
(November 20, 1991). There are three stocks of sockeye remaining
in the Columbia River system including the Wenatchee, Okanogan,
and Snake River stocks. There is no specific information
regarding the ocean distribution of Snake River sockeye, although
they are assumed to migrate to the north. Sockeye adults migrate
through the lower Columbia River during June and July, with
average peak passage at Bo~neville Dam near July 1. It can
therefore be assUmed that any maturing fish will have left the
ocean by early July.
•
•
Based on counts at Ice Harbor Dam, the Snake River sockeye run
has averaged less than 150 fish per year since 1975, when' the
lower Snake River hydroelectric system was completed. Since
1985, the Ice Harbor Dam count has been less than 25 fish
annually. Only one fish-was counted in 1990 and nine fish were
recorded in 1991 (CRTS 1992, Table 1) •
C. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon
Although Snake River spring and summer chinook stocks have been '
listed as a single "distinct population segment," based on NMFS'
finding that they constitute a single "Evolutionarily Significant
Unit (ESU)" (Matthews and Waples 1991), upper Columbia River
sprinq and summer chinook stocks are treated separately in
manaqement-related data bases. Sprinq and summer chinook are
also managed durinq different seasonal fishinq periods usinq
different requlatory criteria. The timinq distinctions are,
therefore, relevant to the understanding of the current
management regime.
For detailed information on the life history of Snake River
spring/summer chinook salmon, see Matthews and Waples (1991),
NMFS (1991b) and 56 FR 29542 (June 27, 1991). Snake River spring
chinook salmon are part of an aqqreqate of stocks from hatchery
and natural production areas upstream of the Bonneville Dam,
including middle Columbia tributaries between the Bonneville and
McNary dams and the upper Columbia system above McNary Dam.
Upriver sprinq chinook salmon beqin enterinq the Columbia River
in late February and early March, reachinq peak abundance in
April and early May in the lower river (below Bonneville Dam).
All chinook passinq Bonneville Dam from March throuqh May are
counted as upriver sprinq chinook •
6
The summer chinook salmon run is comprised of an earlier
migrating race destined primarily for the Salmon River drainage
in Idaho and a later-migrating race destined for the upper
Columbia and its tributaries above Priest Rapids Dam
(ODFW/WDF 1991). Summer chinook salmon enter the Columbia River
in late May, June, and July. Summer chinook are by definition
those counted at the Bonneville Dam from June 1 through JUly 31,
and at the McNary Dam from June 9 through August 8.
Redd counts in index areas provide the best indicator of trends
and status of the population of naturally spawning spring and
summer chinook salmon in the Snake River Basin. Redd counts have
declined sharply over the last 33 years •. In 1957, over 13,000
redds were counted in index areas excluding the Grande Ronde
River. By 1964 and including the Grande Ronde River, the annual
count in index areas was 8,542 redds. Over the next 16 years,
annual counts in all areas declined steadily, reaching a minimum
of 620 redds in 1980. Annual counts increased gradually over the
next 8 years, reaching a peak'of 3,395 redds in 1988. In 1989
and 1990, counts dropped 'again to 1,008 and 1,224 redds,
respectively.
Information regarding the ocean distribution of Snake River
spring and summer chinook is limited. They are assumed to be
north migrating stocks similar to other spring and summer stocks
from the upper Columbia River system. The available information
indicates that impacts from ocean fisheries are minimal. Very
few coded wire tags (CWTs) have been recovered from any ocean
fishery despite the fact that associated indicator stocks have
been tagged continuously since the 1976 brood year. Genetic
stock identification techniques also indicated that contribution
rates to ocean fisheries off the Washington coast are very low
(NMFS 1992a).
•
D. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon
For detailed information on the life history of Snake River fall
chinook salmon, see Waples, gt Al. (1991b)i NMFS (1991c) and
56 FR 29542 (June 27, 1991). The Columbia River fall chinook run
has five major components: Lower River Hatchery, Lower River
Wild, Bonneville Pool Hatchery, Upriver Bright, and Mid-Columbia
Bright. Fall chinook from the Snake River are part of the
Upriver Bright stock complex. The Upriver Bright, Bonneville
Pool, and a portion of Mid-Columbia Bright stocks are produced
above the Bonneville Dam and, in aggregate, comprise the Upriver
Bright run of fall chinook, which is subject to allocation
requirements specified in the CRFMP.
•
..
7
Fall chinook enter the Columbia River from late July through
October, with peak abundance in the lower river from mid-Auqust
to mid-september. The Upriver run peaks over Bonneville Dam in
early september, with Bonneville Pool Hatchery passage occurring
over a shorter time frame than the bright chinook. The
Bonneville Pool Hatchery stock is produced at Spring Creek
Hatchery in the Bonneville Pool. The majority of the Upriver
Bright fall chinook stock is destined for the Hanford Reach
section of the Columbia River. Smaller components are destined
for the Deschutes, Snake, and Yakima rivers. The Mid-Columbia
Bright component is comprised of brights r~ared and released at
the Bonneville Hatchery (below Bonneville dam) and brights from
the Bonneville, Little White Salmon, and Klickitat hatcheries
released in areas between the Bonneville and McNary dams.
Returns of adult fall chinook salmon to the Snake River have
declined to very small numbers in recent years. Yearly adult
counts at the uppermost Snake River main-stem project affording
fish passage averaged 12,.720 from 1964 to 1968, 3,416 from 1969
to 1974, and 610 from 1915 to 1980. The estimated return of
naturally spawning Snake River fall chinook to Lower Granite Dam
averaged 293 from 1986-1991, reaching a low of 78 in 1990. The
return to Lower Granite Dam increased to 318 in 1991.
•
Using the available CWT data, it is possible to estimate the
ocean distribution and relative fishery impacts on Snake River
fall chinook. Although naturally spawning fall chinook have not
been marked directly, CWT data from fingerling, non-transported
releases from the Lyons Ferry hatchery most closely represent the
stock. Results of the analysis indicate that the Lyons Ferry
stock is widely distributed and subject to harvest in marine
fisheries from southern California to Alaska. An analysis of the
distribution of ocean fishery impacts in 1992 indicated that the
majority of the catch occurs in Canadian waters, primarily off
the west coast of Vancouver Island (NMFS 1992a).
Relative Distribution C') of Ocean Fishery Impacts
on Lyons Ferry Chinook Salmon Under the PFMC's
1992 Requlations
Region
Southeast Alaska
•
Canada
PFMC
Relative
Age 3
Impacts
Age 4
1.8
6.8
74.7
23.5
85.6
7.7
8
v.
Assessment of Impacts
A. Description of Fishery
The qroundfish fishery off the west coast of Washinqton, Oreqon,
and California is prosecuted by three major qear types includinq
trawl, pots, and hook-and-line qear with small amounts of
additional catch taken by other miscellaneous qear types.
Nearly 96 percent of all qroundfish in the u.s. fishery is taken
by trawl qear (Table 1). The principal trawl qear confiqurations
include midwater, bottom, and shrimp trawls. Midwater trawls are
used primarily to harvest Pacific whitinq. This is the larqest
volume fishery on the u.s. west coast with landinqs in 1991 of
210,354 metric tons (mt) representinq nearly 72 percent of the
total landed catch of qroundfish (by weiqht). Midwater trawls
were used more extensively durinq the 1980s to harvest widow
rockfish, but as trip limits for this fishery became more
restrictive, an increasinq fraction of the widow rockfish catch
was landed by bottom trawls. Midwater trawls have also been used
in exploratory fisheries for shortbelly rockfish and jack
mackerel.
Bottom trawls are used to harvest flatfish, rockfish, sablefish,
and other species. There are three primary fishery types or
strateqies for the use of bottom trawls includinq nearshore
mixed, bottom rockfish and deepwater strateqies. Nearshore mixed
describes the use of bottom trawls in waters shallower than
100 "fathoms primarily to harvest flatfish. Bottom rockfish
trawls are equipped with rollers on the footrope to enable usaqe
in rocky habitat. Most rockfish trawlinq occurs over the
continental shelf, shallower than 200 fathoms. Deepwater
trawlinq may occur as deep as 600 fathoms. Principal species
taken with deepwater trawls include Dover sole, sablefish, and
thornyheads.
•
Shrimp trawls are a specialized, sma'll mesh trawl used to harvest
shrimp in shallow waters. Approximately 19,000 mt of shrimp were
taken in the Pacific coast fishery in 1992 (Table 1). The shrimp
fishery itself is requlated by the states, althouqh the
qroundfish FMP does establish trip limits for the bycatch of
qroundfish in the shrimp fishery. Nevertheless, available
information on salmon bycatch is presented to provide a more
comprehensive review of west coast fisheries.
•
•
9
Fish pots are used primarily to harvest sablefish. Hook-and-line
gear includes a variety of gear confiqurations, principally
longline and vertical hook-and-line gear. Longline gear has
traditionally been used to harvest sablefish and Pacific halibut,
and the recent decade has, been marked by an increase in the
harvest of rockfish by hook-and-line. Off some areas of
California, setnets (gillnets and trammel nets) ,are used to
harvest rockfish and other species. Fishing strategies in the
Canadian groundfish fisheries are similar. As is the case with
u.s. fisheries, whiting dominate the catch. The Canadian whiting
fishery occurs primarily off the southwest coast of Vancouver
Island. Trawl gear accounted for 96 percent of the total catch
in 1991. The catch of whiting was 104,522 mt (Dorn and Methot
1992) representing 64 percent of Canadian groundfish landings
(Table 2).
B. Salmon Bycatch by Gear Type
There are two steps required in order to analyze the effect of
groundfish fisheries on 1isted salmon species. The first is to
describe how many salmon are caught, and the second is to examine
stock composition in order to infer the likely impact on each of
the listed species~ The purpose of this section is to summarize
the available information on the bycatch of salmon for each of
the major gear types. Following sections will describe the
likely impact on the four salmon stocks of concern using
available information on stock composition.
•
The groundfish fisheries managed under the PFMC groundfish FMP
can be outline~by gear type as follows. (As indicated above,
only the bycatch of groundfish in the shrimp fishery is requlated
by the FMP.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Trawl
a. Midwater
b. Bottom
c. Shrimp
Pot
Hook-and-line
Other
The available information on salmon bycatch in the qroundfish
fisheries is limited primarily to the trawl fisheries. T.be
whiting fishery, which is the principal midwater trawl fishery,
has been the subject of a 'comprehensive observer program since at
least 1977. The bycatch of salmon in the whiting fishery was
•
10
considered in previous biological opinions (NMFS 1990, NMFS
1991a). The whiting fishery off the California coast received
particular attention during the last few years because of
concerns regarding the declining status of SRWRC and Klamath
River fall chinook. As a result, there is a great deal of
informat~on available regarding bycatch in the whiting fishery.
There are three sources of information regarding bycatch in the
bottom trawl fisheries. During 1985-1987, observers on Oregon
trawlers documented patterns of groundfish discard, particularly
with regard to trip limits (Pikitch, ~ Al. 1988).
During 1988-1990, a mesh size experiment was conducted with
California, Oregon, and Washington trawlers during actual fishing
operations (Pikitch, ~ al. 1991). An analysis of salmon bycatch
in these studies is in preparation (Erickson and Pikitch, in
prep.) and is the primary source of information for the
.
biological assessment of the bottom trawl fishery (Methot 1992b)
and this biological opinion. Some information regarding the
shrimp fishery. is also a~ailable from the 1985-1987 groundfish
discard study.
Information on salmon bycatch from NMFS bottom trawl surveys was
used to supplement the fishery information on spatial patterns of
bycatch and level of incidence. Bottom trawl surveys were
conducted on the continental shelf (30-200 fathoms) during 1980,
1983, 1986, and 1989. A similar survey in 1977 covered the depth
range 50-250 fathoms. Each survey was conducted in approximately
mid-July to mid-September and extended as least as far south as
Monterey Bay and at least as far north as the U.S.-Canada border.
The survey gear is a high-rise bottom trawl with rollers and is
roughly comparable to that used in the bottom trawl rockfish
fishery. The survey design is stratified random. Nearly
3,000 tows have been taken in the five surveys.
••
There is little direct information on bycatch in pot,'hook-and
line or other gear type fisheries in the PFMC area. These are
addressed indirectly by inference and using limited information
derived from available sources.
Information regarding bycatch in the Canadian whiting fishery is
available for 1988-1990 (Sandy McFarlane, CDFO, January 17, 1992,
personal communication). There are observations regarding
bycatch in the bottom trawl or other Canadian groundfish
fisheries.
•
•
Table 1.
11
Landed catch of groundfish (mt) in PFMC catch areas in
1991 by gear type (according to best available data in
PacFIN on lS-FEB-92). TR indicates trace amounts.
SPECIES
TRAYLS SH-TRAYLS
POTS IIOOK&lINE
----_.----------- -------24.3
1.0
12.5
....
._---------------- ----4921.2
AlRMOOTH FUIJNDER
DOVER SOLE
ENGLISH SOLE
PETRALE SOLE
REX SOLE
ROCK SOLE
STARRY FLClJNDER
OTHER FLATFISH
UNSP. FLATFISH
_ALL FLATFISH
17881.6
2123.1
1833.7
1134.1
14.5
676.7
1279.0
30.6
29894.5
BLACK ROCKFISH
2.9
BOCACCIO
1190.3
2450.3
CANARY ROCKFI SH
CHILIPEPPER
1680.5
. DARKBLOTCHED ROCKFISH
942.0
212.0 .
REDSTRIPE ROCKFISH
216.7
SHARPCHIN ROCKFISH
SILYERGREY ROCKFISH
320.8
SPLITNOSE ROCKFISH
221.2
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH
132.6
YELLOWMOUTH ROCKFISH
540.6
YELLMAIL ROCKfISH
3521.9
OTHER ROCKFISH
1488.8
SEBASTES COMPLEX
12920.6
PACifiC OCEAN PERCH
1387.4
THORNYHEADS
6387.4
WIDOW ROCKFISH
6724.6
UNSP. ROCKf! SH
"01.6
_ALL ROCKFI SH
28525.8
•
..lACK MACKEREL
LlNGtm
PACIFIC em
PACifiC WHITING
SABLEFISH
OTHER RCUlDFiSH
~LL ROUNDflSH
SPINY DOGFISH
OTHER GRClJNDflSH
UNSP. GRClJNDf ISH
_"ISC. GRClJNDFISH
ALL GROUNDFiSH
CALIFORNIA HALIBUT
PACIFIC HALIBUT
PINK SHRIMP
•
23.6
0.7
0.3
0.7
TR
TR
0.5
50.T
TR
10.8
25.4
3.8
7.3
TR0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
TR
415.4
5.4
469.0
3.1
2.2
25.3
279.2
778.9
1.8
0.5
1.2
0.6
o.T
0.1
TR
5.2
0.3
2.9
3.1
3.6
0.5
0.4
2.1
15.1
3.4
43.5
102.5
133.0
63.4
235.0
0.1
lETS
____ a _ e .
TR
31.3
4.0
27.5
0.6
0.2
1.1
5.0
5.0
74.6
202.5
0.6
0.6
11.8
13.3
139.3
2611.8
1803.5
210354.1
4863.4
23.2
2.6
1.2
17.5
1059.6
219779.1
43.3
692.1
281.0
107.2
1080.9
0.1
0.6
210.1
177.2
970.8
0.1
70.8
56.3
2957.5
4055.5
TR
0.1
262.0
47.8
34.6
32.1
0.1
0.6
11.8
2.8
392.3
1.4
93.9
Ti
Ti
Ti
-
0.2
1.2
48.1
Ti
0.3
TROLLS OTH GEARS
------_.
-------TR
0.6
8.6
Ti
202.5
10.'0
0.1
93.9
4.8
116.6
1131.7
1455.7
0.2
0.1
56.5
66.8
69.9
8.2
452.9
624.9
148.1
34.6
0.1
16.2
27.4
TR
41.4
76.9
50.'
'52.8
5.i
ALL GEAlS
-~;.-.---
4959.5
18203.2
2179.1
1900.9
1168.6
15.2
680.5
1311 .5
41.8
30460.1
105.5
1632.2
2539.1
1919.4
949.4
212.0
217.3
321.1
222.4
180.8
540.6
4156.0
1671.5
14667.0
1390.6
6536.0
6931.8
5991.2
35520.9
139.3
3176.4
1810.7
210405.8
9452.4
22.8
225014.5
1060.'
33o.T
4.5
2.9
3384.9
Tit
3722.5
0.4
33.9
22.8
205.2
0.7
2.3
TR
2.4
207.7
47.4
3.5
258.6
57.'0
7. ,
64.1
0.1
0.6
TR
0.1
1.4
14.2
900.7
394.8
126.2
'421.8
279210.2
173.0
1081.6
8080. ,
1799.5
"1.6
1184~2
292417.3
158.1
0.5
o.l
1.4
38.1
166.4
235.4
TR
0.1
1.7
34.0
0.1
467.8
168.8
19005.4
4643.2
14362.1
12
Table 2. Landed catch of groundfish (mt) in Canadian waters
(International North Pacific Fisheries Commission or
INPFC areas) in 1991 by gear type. The catch of
whiting is shown separately from that of other
groundfish species.
INPFC Area
Trawl
Shrfn.,
Net
Hk/Line
Charlotte
Other
33,797
0
3,122
,
VancCMNer
Other
19,377
11
3,323
104.522
0
157,696
11
Whiting
Total
Troll
.
Total
93
37,013
5
113
22,829
0
0
0
104.522
6,445
6
206
164,364
1.a. Midwater Trawl
The Pacific whiting fishery is the only midwater trawl groundfish
fishery of significance in the PFMC representing 72 percent of
Pacific coast groundfish landings. Midwater gear has been used
to target widow rockfish, but this fishery has declined in recent
years as trip limits became more restrictive. There have been
some efforts to harvest shortbelly rockfish and jack mackerel
with midwater gear, although these fisheries are still
exploratory in nature. There is currently an experimental
fishery proposed for up to 13,000 mt of shortbelly rockfish that
would be taken off the California coast. The decision on whether
to issue the permit has not been made. If the permit is issued,
the fishery will likely be subject to area restrictions and NMFS
certified observers would examine every tow by whole-haul
sampling for bycatch.
i. Description of the Pacific Whiting Resource
Pacific whiting is a migratory species that spawns off central
California to northern Baja California, Mexico, during January
February. During March-April there is a northward migration of
adults. Juveniles tend to remain off central California and
larger, older whiting tend to migrate farthest north. The
traditional fishery (see below) tended to begin in late April off
northern California and Oregon. By June, whiting are available
to the whiting fishery off Vancouver Island, Canada. While on
the feeding grounds, .whitinq are semi-pelagic and found primarily
over the continental shelf. The date of the return migration is
not certain and some fishing has occurred through November. The
total available harvest (U.S. plus Canada) fluctuates because of·
•
13
extreme variation in recruitment, and is expected to average
221,000 mt in the long term (Figure 1).
ii. Description of the Pacific Whiting Fishery
The fishery for Pacific whiting in u.s. waters has evolved
through three eras since its inception in the mid-1960s.
Throughout this period, whiting has been harvested almost
entirely by midwater trawls. The first era was dominated by
foreign fisheries that were restricted to operate offshore of
12 miles and north of 39 degrees. During the second era, 1978
1989, a joint venture fishery involving domestic catcher boats
and foreign at-sea processors was initiated. The joint venture
fishery grew to 203,578 mt in 1989 when it completely displaced
the foreign fishery. During this same decade, the shorebased
whiting fishery grew from less than 1,000 mt to 7,418 mt in 1989.
The third era began in 1991 with the complete displacement of the
joint venture fishery by domestic at-sea processors, domestic
catcher-processors,' and substantial growth in the shorebased
whiting fishery (Figure 2). The distribution of catch among
these groups in 1991 was influenced by allocation by the PFMC and
resulted in 119,123 mt (including discards) to catcher
processors, 81,835 mt to motherships and 20,601 mt to shQreside.
•
In 1992, the harvest guideline for whiting in the u.s. fishery is
208,800 mt. The PFMC allocated 98,800 mt for processing at sea.
Of the remainder, 80,000 mt is available for processing onshore
and 30,000 mt is reserved for either shoreside or at-sea
processing, although shoreside processors have priority. If the
shoreside plants are unable to use any portion of their
allocation, it may be reallocated for use by the at-sea fleet.
The first decision regarding reallocation would be made on or
about September 1, 1992. Additional management actions were
taken in 1992 to limit bycatch, particularly in southern INPFC
areas. Fishing for whiting inside of 100-fathoms was limited in
the Eureka area, night fishing was prohibited and the area south
of 42-N was closed to at-sea processing. The 1992 season opened
on April 15. By May 5, the at-sea processors had taken all of
the initial allocation and were closed pending possible
reallocation of available surplus latter in the year.
The catch in the Canadian fishery averaged about 42,000 at since
1966 accounting for an average of about one quarter of the total
harvest coastwide (Figure 1). In recent years, the Canadian
catch of whiting has increased. The catch since 1987 has
averaged nearly 89,000 at and totaled 104,522 mt in 1991 (Dorn
and Methot 1992).
•
14
•
iii. Salmon Bycatch in the Whiting Fishery
The bycatch of salmon in the foreign, joint venture, and at-sea
domestic whiting fishery in PFMC waters has been well monitored
by the NMFS Fishery Observer Program. With the exception of .
1986, the annual salmon catch in the whiting fishery has ranged
from 2,300 to 16,200 and averaged approximately 9,500 (Figure 3).
The reason for the higher bycatch in 1986 is unknown, but was due
at least in part to the higher abundance of salmon, particularly
in the Columbia area. Because of the changing nature of the
fishery, catch patterns from more recent years are described in
more detail and used to project the likely range of bycatch for
1992 and beyond.
The vast majority of salmon taken in the whiting fishery are
chinook. Chinook comprised. 82 to 98 percent of the salmon
bycatch in the 1986-1990 :u.S. joint venture whiting fishery.
Most of the remainder are chum and coho. In the 1982-1987
foreign and joint venture fishery, sockeye bycatch averaged
22 fish per year. In the 1988-1990 joint venture fishery, no
sockeye were observed. The salmon bycatch in the Canadian
fishery over 3 years (1988-1990) comprised an average of
93 percent chinook and an average of 54 sockeye per year.
Patterns of salmon bycatch rate are summarized in Table 3 by
International North .Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) area and
user type (Figure 4). Areas with less than 1,000 mt of whiting
catch are not presented because of the high variability in salmon
bycatch (typically, salmon occur in about 27 percent of all
whiting tows, but about 2 percent of the tows contribute
50 percent of the salmon bycatch).
Salmon bycatch rate in the Vancouver area typically has been two
or three times the rate in the Columbia area. There has been
little fishing in the u.s. Vancouver area, partly due to
restrictions on foreign vessels, but increased activity by the
domestic fleet is possible. The Canadian fishery in the
Vancouver area has increased in recent years (Figure 2).
A large fraction of the whiting fishery occurs in the Columbia
area. In four of the five years examined, the salmon bycatch
rate by the joint venture fishery in this area was lower than the
coastwide average (Table 3). The foreign fishery tended to have
a higher salmon bycatch rate in the Columbia area than in the
Eureka area, perhaps because the 12 mile from shore restriction
on the foreign fishery moved them offshore of the high salmon
•
15
bycatch depth zone «100 fathoms) in the Eurekil area, but not in
the Columbia area which has a wider shelf.
The bycatch rate of the 1991 domestic fishery in the Eureka area
was similar to the rate achieved by the joint venture fishery in
this area during 1988-90. In 1990 and 1991, the Eureka area rate
was greater than the Columbia area rate, but this has not always
been the case and is inconsistent with observations from the
bottom trawl fishery (see below).
In 1989-1991, the Monterey area had a salmon bycatch rate that
was slightly lower than the rate observed in the Columbia area,
but the sample size was small in 1989 and 1990 (1,800 mt whiting
in each year).
Table 3.
•
Year
Observed bycatch rates (# salmon/mt whiting) for salmon
in the Canadian and PFMC area foreign, joint venture
and domestic whiting fishery by INPFC catch area.
Vancouver
Columbia
Eureka
Monterey Total
Canadian Waters
1988
0.148
1989
0.150
1990
0.103
U.S. Waters/Foreign
-
1986
0.201
1987
0.094
1988
0.126
U.S. waters/Joint venture
0.284
1986 0.434
0.073
1987
0.201
0.085
1988 0.238
0.058
1989
1990
•
0.050
0.029
0.065
0.146
0.094
0.053
0.121
0.959
0.331
0.081
0.107
0.103
0.036
0.041
0.047
0.098
0.023
0.054
0.071
0.007
0.032
U.S • Waters/Domestic
1991
0.037
0.011
16
A depth effect has been observed in the Eureka-area in the past
with higher salmon bycatch rates observed inside of the
100 fathom contour (Table 4). Higher bycatch rates were also
observed in near-shore areas in the bottom trawl fishery. The
continental shelf off the Eureka area is narrow and the
100 fathpm contour generally occurs 6 to 10 nautical miles
offshore. In the Columbia and Vancouver areas, the shelf is
broader, the 100 fathom isobath is further offshore, and much of
the whiting fishery occurs inside of the 100 fathom contour. The
PFMC restricted fishing inside of 100 fathoms in the Eureka area
by emergency rule in 1992 based primarily on the analysis of data
specific to the Eureka area.
Table 4.
Salmon bycatch rate (# salmon/mt whiting) in the Eureka
area whiting fishery.
Year
..
1988 .
1989
1990
1991
Nearshore
0.476
0.093
0.335
no tows
Offshore
0.083
0.015
0.029
0.071
All
0.107
0.036
0.098
0.071
••
iv. Annual Variability in Bycatch
Bycatch rates in the Eureka and Vancouver area have not shown
significant trends in recent years. However, the bycatch rate in
the Columbia area has been on a downward trend, even without
considering the high rate in 1986. It is not clear whether the
low rate achieved by the domestic fishery in this area in 1991 is
a continuation of this trend or a manifestation of an unknown
difference in the fishing operations. The fishery was compressed
into the April-June period, but the lack of apparent seasonality
in bycatch suggests that this shift in timing had little effect
on total bycatch.
v. Salmon Bycatch by Shorebased Vessels
until recently shorebased vessels did not account for a
significant amount of the whiting catch (Figure 2). However, the
catch of the shorebased fleet qrew to 20,500 mt in 1991 and
further qrowth is expected in 1992. Shorebased vessels were not
sampled by the observer program in 1991 or in previous years.
Information related to salmon bycatch is therefore limited.
•
The
17
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) did place observers
on 25 vessel trips fishing out of Newport, Oregon, during 1991.
These trips accounted for 1,026 mt of whiting and two chinook
salmon (0.002 chinook/mt) (Claire Wood, ODFW, January 24, 1992,
personal communication). ODFW instituted a more comprehensive
sampling program in 1992. Preliminary information for the
shorebased fleet operating out of Newport, Oregon, for the period
April 15 to June 30, 1992, indicate that the bycatch rate is
relatively low and comparable to that of the domestic at-sea
processors that operated in the Columbia area in 1991. ODFW
sampled 159 deliveries accounting for 6,149 mt of whiting and
observed 86 salmon. The resulting bycatch rate is 0.014
salmon/mt whiting. In lieu of more comprehensive information on
bycatch rates in the shore-based fishery for whiting, the rates
observed in the at-sea fisheries were applied to the shorebased
fishery.
.
vi. Expected Distribution of Whiting Fishery in 1992
The PFMC adopted a ·series of management actions for the 1992
season designed to reduce bycatch, particularly in the Eureka
area. First, the opening date was delayed until April 15.
Second, catcher-processors and at-sea processors were prevented
from operating south of 42~ latitude. Third, directed harvest .
was prohibited inside of the 100-fathom contour within the Eureka
area. Finally, fishing at night was prohibited coastwide. These
management actions have affected the distribution of catch. For
example, the April 15 opening date reduced the amount of fishing
time in April and shifted the at-sea processors northward because
of the northward migration of the fish. Additionally, warm water
conditions associated with a moderate El Nino are occurring.
This also moves the whiting, and their fishery, northwards.
These factors indicate that only the shorebased fishery will
operate to a substantial degree in the Eureka area. The at-sea
fishery opened April 15, 1992, and closed on May 5 having taken
their initial allocation. Preliminary data on the catch of the
at-sea processors and the projected distribution of the shoreside
fishery is shown by area in Table 5 •
•
18
Table 5. Catch of whiting (mt) and salmon (I) in the 1992
PFMC whiting fishery. Observed catch includes catch
of at-sea processors taken during the April 15 to
May 5, 1992, opening. Projected catch represents the
anticipated distribution for the remainder of the
whiting harvest guideline.
INPFC Area
Projected
Observed
Salmon
Whiting
Whiting
I/mt
Vancouver
11,739
186
0.0158
15,000
columbia
69,515
1,039
0.0150
85,000
Eureka
17,650
110
0.0062
10,000
0
0
0
0
98,904
1,335
0.0135
110,000
Monterey
Total
vii. Expected Bycatch Rates in 1992
There are two approaches that can be used for projecting bycatch
rate in the u.S. fishery for the remainder of the season.
Projections can be based on patterns observed in recent years or
the rates observed to date for the 1992 fishery. In the
Vancouver area, the expected rate based on recent years is
0.13 salmon per mt whiting (mean of the 1987-1991 rates; also
equal to the 1988-90 rate reported for the Canadian hake
fishery). In the Columbia area, the mean rate since 1987 has
been 0.05 salmon per mt, but there has been a downward trend to
0.01 salmon per mt in 1991. In the Eureka area, the bycatch rate
in 1992 is expected to be about 0.05 salmon per mt whiting which
is the simple mean of the 1988-1991 rates observed while fishing
offshore of the 100 fathom contour. Preliminary data from the
1992 at-sea fishery indicate that the rates have been lower than
expected based on recent year averages (Table 5).
viii. Expected
S~lmon
•
Bycatch in. 1992
The expected salmon bycatch in 1992 ranges from 2,909 to 8,035
fish depending upon whether the recent year average rates or the
lower rates observed during 1992 are used (Table 6). The mean of
these two estimates, 5,472 salmon, is taken as a reasonable
projection for the 1992 fishery. This would be substantially
less than the overall bycatch observed in recent years (Table 7),
•
19
although it also shows a displacement of the fishery and bycatch
from south to north.
Bycatch rates in the Canadian fishery averaged 0.134 salmon/mt
from 1988-1990. The expected catch of whiting in the 1992
Canadian fishery is approximately 90,000 mt. The expected
bycatch of salmon in 1992 is, therefore, approximately
12,,000 salmon based on average bycatch rates from recent years
or 1,400 based on the observed rate in the u.s. Vancouver area in
1~92.
•
It is difficult to project the magnitude or distribution of
salmon bycatch in the whiting fishery for future years. Bycatch
will depend on the abundance of salmon and the success in finding
management measures designed to reduce bycatch without unduly
constraining the whiting fishery. It is likely that the PFMC
will continue to experiment with management actions that can be
used to reduce salmon bycatch. Given the current status and
concerns regarding SRWRC,and Klamath River fall chinook, PFMC
will likely continue to focus their attention regarding bycatch
on the Eureka and Monterey areas as was done in 1992. This will
likely result in more whiting being caught in areas to the north.
Table 6.
Projected bycatch of salmon (numbers of salmon) in the
1992 PFMC whiting fishery. Observed catch represents
catch to date by at-sea processors. Projected catch is
based on bycatch rates observed in 1992 (low) and
those observed in recent years (average).
INPFC Area
Vancouver
Columbia
Eureka
Monterey
Total
Observed
Projected
Average
Low
Total
Low
Average
186
1,039
110
0
237
1,275
62
0
1,950
4,250
500
0
423
2,314
172
0
1,335
1,574
6,700
2,909
2,136
5,289
610
0
8,03,5
20
Table 7. Salmon bycatch (numbers of salmon) in the u.S. whiting
fishery by INPFC area.
1
Year
Vancouver
Columbia
1986
4,920
27,372
4,867
18
37,177
1987
1,399
11,886
0
0
13,285
1988
2,969
10,453
2,744
2
16,168
1989
35
5,464
3,626
74
9,199
1990
326
2,945
5,995
42
9,308
1991
1992'
268
753
3,801
4,811
391
499
0
6,331
1,280
Monterey
Eureka
Total
5,472
projecte4 catch
Although the harvest of whiting is expected to average
approximately 221,000 mt in the long-term, it is expected that
the allowable catch of whiting in the near future- will be reduced
below 1992 levels (208,800 mt). ~he preliminary recommendation
for whiting harvest in 1993 is 177,000 mt coastwide including
Canada (PFMC 1992b).
Bycatch rates have varied considerably between years and areas in
recent years, but it is expected that the bycatch rate can be
kept below 0.05 salmon/mt calculated on an annual and coastwide
basis. The 0.05 rate was adopted as a voluntary industry
standard in 1991 and is used here to define the upper limit of
expected catch of salmon for future years. The upper range of
anticipated catch of salmon in the u.S. whiting fishery is,
therefore, approximately 11,000 (221,000 mt * 0.05 - 11,050) the
majority of which will be chinook. This estimate and the
projected catch for 1992 will be used to define the range of
anticipated catch in the subsequent discussion regarding stock
specific impacts.
How to approximate the likely bycatch for future Canadian
fisheries is less clear. The bycatch rates have tended to be
higher in the Vancouver area fisheries. The Canadian whiting
fisheries are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as the
u.s. fisheries and were not subject to the 0.05 salmon/mt whiting
voluntary industry standard used by the United states. The
bycatch rate in the Canadian fishery has been consistently higher
21
in recent years. For the purposes of this review, it is assumed
that the bycatch of salmon may again be as high as it has been in
recent years. The bycatch of salmon in 1989 was nearly 14,000
salmon taken in conjunction with nearly 100,000 mt of whiting.
This is perhaps a reasonable estimate of the maximum catch in the
near future since the allowable harvest of whiting is expected to
decline.
I.b.
Bottom Trawl
The primary source of information used for estimating salmon
bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery was the report of Erickson
and pikitch (in prep.). The report summarized the results of a
discard study conducted from 1985-1987 and a mesh size study
conducted from 1988-1990. The discard study covered the
Washington and northern Oregon coasts and all four quarters.·
Sampling in the mesh size study included the entire Pacific
coast, but only the thir~ and fourth quarters (Table 8).
Erickson and pikitch used the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission (PSFMC) rather than INPFC catch areas to stratify
their study design. To discuss the results of their study and
summarize the results regarding anticipated bycatch, it is
necessary to refer to the PSMFC and INPFC catch areas
interchangeably. Reference to Figure 4 and Table 8 will help
minimize the associated confusion.
Chinook were the dominate salmon species observed in both the
discard (94 percent) and· mesh size (98 percent) studies. This is
consistent with the results from other bycatch studies involving
trawl gear. In the. midwater trawl fishery for Pacific whiting,
chinook comprise 82-98 percent of the salmon taken in the 1986
1990 U.S. joint venture fishery. In the NMFS bottom trawl
surveys, 617 of the 640 salmon taken (96 percent) were chinook.
Virtually all of the salmon caught in the trawl fishery were
taken in relatively shallow water. Only one chinook was observed
from tows in water that was greater than 300 fathoms and there
were few taken in water greater than 100 fathoms. This depth
effect was similar to that observed in the midwater trawl
fishery.
Three different bottom trawl fishing strategies were investigated
including the near-shore mixed, bottom rockfish and deepwater
strategies. Bycatch rates did not differ between strategies
•
(Erickson and Pikitch in prep.) thus permittinq development of
estimates of bycatch rate that were generally applicable to all
bottom trawl gear types.
•
22
Table 8. Sampling effort (number of tows) by quarter and area in
depths less than 549 m during discard and mesh size
field studies for the bottom groundfish trawling
strategy (Erickson and Pikitch, in prep.). The PSMFC
area and approximate corresponding INPFC area are shown
for reference.
•
Discard (1985-87)
2
3
4
1
PSMFC
Area
INPFC
Area
3B
Van
13
15
3A
Col
49
2C
Col
2B
13
12
22
95
74
45
89
240
100
Col
46
34
85
95
2A
1C
Eur
5
2
1B
1A
-
Mon
-
Con
-
-
Eur
-
-
-
-
-
Mesh Size (1988-90)
1
3
2
4
-
-
.
-
232
65
101
52
115
.113
-
115
25
22
25
-
40
11
69
-
-
23
-
8
Spatial patterns of chinook bycatch were also considered. In the
1985-87 study, Erickson and Pikitch (in prep.) reported that the
bycatch rate in area 2B (central Oregon) was higher than areas to
the north during each of the four quarters sampled. Area 2B also
had the highest rate in the 1988-90 study, although the
differences were not statistically significant. These results
differed somewhat from those of the NMFS survey stUdies where the
occurrence of salmon was highest in the Eureka area. Higher
chinook bycatch in the Eureka area was also observed in the
Pacific whiting midwater trawl fishery.
There were significant differences in the bycatch rate between
seasons. Bycatch rates in the 1985-87 study were higher in the
first and fourth quarters than during the second and third
quarters. During the 1988-90 study, sampling was limited to the
third and fourth quarters, but the results were consistent with
those of the discard study (Table 9).
•
23
Table 9. Bycatch rate (number/tow hour) of salmon derived from
the discard and mesh size studies (Methot 1992b).
sampling in the mesh size study was limited to the
third and fourth quarters.
Quarter
study
Discard
(1985-87)
Mesh Size (1988-90)
1 and 4
2 and 3
0.211
0.280
0.031
0.015
Estimates of total chinook bycatch were developed by expanding
bycatch rates using logbook estimates of total trawl' hours.
Erickson and pikitch compiled estimates of bottom trawl effort in
depths less than 300 fathoms by quarter and PSMFC area for 1986
and 1987 (their Table 7) and 1990 (their Table 8). The effort
estimates were multiplied by estimates of chinook bycatch rates
for each quarter and PSMFC area (Methot 1992b). When the 1986
level of effort is applied to the 1985-87 rates, the estimated
total chinook bycatch for the Washington and central Oregon coast
(areas 2B through 3B-C) is 5,300 chinook. When the same
calculation is made with the 1987 level of bottom trawl effort,
the estimated bycatch of chinook is 7,757 chinook. When the 1990
effort is applied to the 1988-1990 rates, the estimated bycatch
of chinook for the entire California, Oregon, and Washington
coast is 9,178. This is a conservative estimate because of their
recommended exclusion of an outlier. Approximately 990 of these
chinook were estimated to have been taken south of the areas
included in the 1986 and 1987 estimates. The resulting range of
estimates for annual, coastwide chinook bycatch in the bottom
trawl fishery is 6,290 to 9,178 fish.
•
The analysis therefore provides three estimates (from 1986, 1987,
and 1990) of chinook bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery for the
Washington and central Oregon coast (areas 2B through 3B-C) and
one (from 1990) for the California and southern Oregon coast
(areas 1A through 2A). There is obviously less certainty
regarding the general magnitude of bycatch in the southern areas.
Areas 1A through 2A (the Monterey and Eureka INPFC areas) were
not as well represented in the sampling design as areas to the
north. Observations from the midwater trawl whiting fishery
suggest that bycatch rates in the Eureka area in particular, are
•
24
generally higher than areas to the north. This is inconsistent
with the bottom trawl data. However, despite the relative
uncertainty regarding bycatch in the south, it is useful to
maintain the north/south stratification because it corresponds to
assumptions related to the distribution of SRWRC and Snake River
fall chinook discussed later.
alternative calculation of total bycatch can be made by
pooling some strata before calculating the expansions. This is
possible because there tended to not be significant differences
between areas and because the first and fourth quarters were
similar, but different from the second and third quarters. The
resulting estimate of coastwide, annual chinook bycatch during
1985-1990 is approximately 11,000 chinook. However, this
approach did not provide the north/south stratification that was
desirable for the subsequent analysis of stock specific impacts.
The level of chinook bycatch in current and future bottom trawl
fisheries is difficult to project. The available information
suggests that the bycatch of chinook for northern areas is on the
order of 5,000 to 8-,000 with another 1,000 chinook taken off
southern Oreqon and California. Erickson and Pikitch (in prep.)
strongly caution against extrapolating from the rates observed in
their studies because of changing trawl mesh size and technique,
changing abundance of salmon, and other factors. However, their
studies do help define the approximate magnitude of chinook
bycatcp in the bottom trawl fishery and provide perspective when
comparing to other fisheries. A coast-wide catch of 6,000 to
9,000 chinook compares roughly to the take in the midwater trawl
whiting fishery, but is only a few percent of the annual catch of
chinook salmon in commercial and recreational salmon fisheries
(Table 10).
An
Table 10. Coastwide chinook salmon landings (numbers of salmon)
for ocean troll and recreational fisheries (PFMC,
1992c).
Oregon
Year
Washington
California
1986
71,000
425,000
968,000
1,464,000
1987
125,000
589,000
1,069,000
1,783,000
1988
133,000
508,000
1,488,000
2,129,000
1989
1990
106,000
93,000
386,000
718,000
1,210,000
259,000
563,000
915,000
1991
63,000
89,000
376,000
528,000
Total
•
25
1.c.
Shrimp Trawl
A total of 247 shrimp trawl tows were examined for bycatch during
the 1985-87 discard study. No salmon were observed in any of the
tows. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the shrimp
fishery has negligible impact of salmon.
Erickson and Pikitch (in prep.) speculated that the absence of
salmon in the shrimp trawl fishery may be due to timing of the
fishery. The shrimp season takes place during the late spring
and summer, when salmon bycatch for all trawl fisheries was
generally lowest. They also suggested that the absence of salmon
bycatch might be related to hydrodynamics of the small mesh net
or slower towing speed.
2.
•
Pot Gear
Pots are baited traps that are deployed on the bottom and used to
target sablefish.The pot fishery in PFMC areas accounted for
less than 1,100 mtor about 0.4 percent of groundfish landings in
1991. There is no direct information regarding bycatch in the
pot fishery. However, because of the pelagic, visually oriented
feeding strategy of salmon, it is unlikely salmon would enter a
baited trap placed on the bottom. The bycatch of salmon in the
pot fishery is assumed to be essentially zero.
3.
Hook-and-Line
Hook-and-line gear is used to target primarily sablefish, Pacific
halibut, and rockfish. (Pacific halibut are managed by the
International Pacific Halibut Commission established by treaty
between the united states and canada, and are not one of the
designated species managed under the groundfish FMP.) There are
several different hook-and-line gear configurations. Longlines
are strings of baited hooks that are anchored to the bottom and
used to target sablefish and halibut. Vertical longlines are
again strings of balted hooks that are fished vertically and used
to target various rockfish species, particularly in southern
Oregon and California. Jigs are fished differently, but are
again strings of baited hooks or other attractants that are
fished more actively from a vessel. Jigs are used to target
primarily rockfish and some lingcod.
•
The hook-and-line fishery in 1991 took about 8,100 mt or about
2.8 percent of all of groundfish landings coastwide. Retention
of salmon in groundfish fisheries is prohibited and, because of
the scale of the fishery, there has been no monitoring program
designed to collect bycatch information. As a res~lt, there is
26
no specific data regarding the bycatch of salmon. It is unlikely
that salmon would be taken by baited hooks on longlines anchored
to the bottom, because of the general feeding habit of salmon.
It is conceivable that salmon might be taken on the vertical
longline or jig operations. However, based on personal
communication with biologists involved in managing these
fisheries in each of the states and fishermen that have been .
involved with these fisheries, it seems unlikely that the bycatch
of salmon is more than an occasional event which would have
negligible impact on the species of concern.
4.
Other Gear
There are a variety of localized setnet (gillnet and trammel net)
fisheries located off the California coast. The use of gillnets
is prohibited by the groundfish FMP north of 38° N latitude (just
north of San Francisco Bay). In PFMC groundfish fisheries,
sunken gillnets are used to target rockfish. Information from
the central California a~ea indicates that the rockfish fishery
takes place in relatively deepwater and that salmon interactions
are negligible (Marine Resources Division 1987).
California halibut and white croaker are the primary target
species of inshore fisheries, although these fisheries are
managed under California state regulation and are not part of the
groundfish FMP. The state fisheries have been monitored in
recent years because of concerns for bird and marine mammal
interactions. ~stimates of the total salmon taken incidental to
the qi1lnet and trammel net fisheries for the area from the
Mendacino-Sonoma county line to Yankee Point south of Monterey
Bay for 1983-1985 are 1,898, 1,663, and 2,170, respectively
(Marine Resources Division 1987). Chinook salmon comprised 94
percent of the salmon catch. Many of the nearshore fishing areas
where most of the bycatch was observed have been closed in recent
years to minimize impacts on birds and mammals. These regulatory
changes have also resulted in substantial reductions in the
bycatch of salmon (Wild 1990).
VI. Species Specific Impacts
A. Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon
Estimating the bycatch of SRWRC in the whiting fishery in any
particular area depends on estimates of the catch of salmon and
the relative abundance of salmon stocks present in that area.
Projections of bycatch of salmon by INPFC area for 1992 were
developed in a previous section (Table 6 and 7). The information
necessary to estimate the relative abundance of SRWRC is
27
generally not available. However, an analysis~was developed in
the previous'biological opinion regarding the impacts of the
whiting fishery (NMFS 1991a) that provided a method for
approximating the magnitude of bycatch of SRWRC. The analysis
was based on a series of assumptions from existing data sources
and management models. The numbers generated by this process are
not intended for use as point estimates, but are rather best
viewed as professional judgement of the approximate magnitude of
the catch.
SRWRC are distributed'primarily off the California coast. The
abundance of SRWRC relative to other stocks in the Monterey and
Eureka areas was previously estimated to be approximately 1/1500
and 1/5500, respectively (NMFS 1991a). The contribution of SRWRC
to catch in the Columbia and Vancouver areas was not explicitly
estimated, but would be substantially lower than in the Eureka
area.
Management measures in 1992 have effectively eliminated the
whiting fishery from the ,-Monterey area. The delayed opening and
ocean conditions have tended to displace the fishery to the
north. At-sea processors are prohibited from fishing south of
42· north latitude (the Eureka extends from 43·00" to 40·30" N
latitude). The capacity of the onshore processing fleet within
the Eureka area is limited and the catch of whiting in the Eureka
area is not expected to exceed 10,000 mt in 1992. There are no
onshore processing plants for whiting south of Eureka, California
or in the Monterey area. These same measures have also greatly
reduced the projected bycatch of salmon in the Eureka area from a
few thousand observed in recent years to a few hundred in 1992
(Table 7). Because of the more northerly distribution of the
bycatch and assumptions regarding relative abundance of stocks,
the probability of catching a SRWRC in the 1992 whiting fishery
is considered negligible.
•
.
The prospects of impacting SRWRC in future years depends on the
distribution and magnitude of the whiting fishery and bycatch
rate. Substantial increases in the catch of whiting in the
Eureka or particularly the Monterey areas would be cause for
concern. However, for the foreseeable future, continuing
concerns for SRWRC and Klamath River fall chinook are likely to
lead to the continuing use of management actions to minimize
bycatch in areas south of the Columbia area as was done in 1992.
xt was estimated that the 'bycatch of salmon in the bottom trawl
fishery in areas south of the Columbia area would be on the order
•
of 1,000 fish per year. Determining the impact of this bycatch
on SRWRC depends on how this catch is distributed across the
28
Eureka, Monterey and Conception areas. If we assume that all of
the bycatch was taken in the Monterey area, the area of highest
relative abundance, we would still estimate that less than one
SRWRC would be taken per year.
B. Snake River Sockeye Salmon
There is no information to suggest that Snake River~sockeye.are
harvested in Pacific coast groundfish fisheries. Nearly all of
the salmon caught in the midwater whiting and bottom trawl
fisheries are chinook. Chinook comprise 82 to 98 percent of the
salmon bycatch in ,the 1986-90 U.S. joint venture whiting fishery.
Most of the remairider are coho and chum. In the 1982-1987
foreign and joint venture fishery, sockeye bycatch averaged
22 fish per year. In the 1988-1990 joint venture fishery, no
sockeye were observed. In the bottom trawl surveys, 96 percent
of the salmon observed were chinook and none were sockeye.
likelihood that any of the very few sockeye taken in
groundfish fisheries are~from the Snake River is extremely
remote. The number of Snake River sockeye returning to the
Columbia River is likely quite small (probably on the order of a
few tens of fish) compared to the millions of sockeye from other
stocks that enter the PFMC management area and pass primarily
through the Strait of'Juan de Fuca to the Fraser River. Methot
(1992a, 1992b) concluded that the likelihood of taking any
sockeye from the Snake River in whiting or bottom trawl fisheries
is negligible.
,~The
·e
C. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon
Although chinook are the primary salmon species taken as bycatch
in the groundfish fisheries, there is little affirmative evidence
to suggest that Snake River spring/summer chinook are included in
the bycatch. Snake River spring and summer chinook are assumed
to be north migrating. As a result, any taking that may occur is
likely limited to the northern Oregon and Washington coast.
Review of CWTrecovery data also suggests that these stocks are
absent from PFMC areas during most of their life history. The
CWT data is problematic because survival rates of tagged fish
have been quite low. However, over 2.8 million tagged spring
chinook and nearly 1.6 million tagged summer chinook have been
released over a twelve year time period beginning in 1976. None
of these tags have ever been recovered from PFMC area groundfish
fisheries; there have been very few tags recovered in PFMC area
salmon. There have been four observed recoveries of spring
chinook in ocean fisheries (all in Canadian waters) compared .to
~
,.,
•
29
622 from inriver fisheries and escapement. There have been
20 estimated recoveries of summer chinook in u.s. ocean fisheries
and seven more in Canadian ocean fisheries, compared to
195 estimated recoveries in the inriver fisheries and escapement.
The STT (1992) concluded that there was insufficient information
to determine the ocean distribution of Snake River spring.or
summer chinook, but based on the review of CWT and other
.
information, that these stocks are unlikely to be significantly
impacted by ocean salmon fisheries in the PFMC area.
Suggestive, albeit negative evidence (absence of tag recoveries
where recoveries would be expected if spring/summer chinook were
impacted), indicates that these stocks are not significantly
affected by salmon or groundfish fisheries in the PFMC area.
Therefore, NMFS concludes that fishing conducted under the
groundfish FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of Snake River spring/summer chinook.
D. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon
•
As was the case with SRWRC, estimating the impact of the
groundfish FMP on Snake River fall chinook depends on estimates
of bycatch and assumptions regarding the relative abundance of
salmon stocks in the areas of concern. It was previously
estimated that the bycatch of salmon in the whiting fishery in
1992 would be approximately 5,100 _in the Vancouver and Columbia
areas and 400 in the Eureka area (Table 6 and 7). It was also
estimated that the bycatch of salmon in the whiting fishery is
unlikely to exceed 11,000 per year coast-wide for the foresee~ble
future. There is some uncertainty regarding the geographic
distribution of the whiting fishery in future years, but it is
most likely to be located primarily to the north in the Columbia
and Vancouver areas. Bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery is
expected to be on the order of 1,000 salmon in the areas south of
the Columbia area and 5,000 to 8,000 in Columbia and Vancouver
areas.
There is some direct information indicating the presence of Snake
River fall chinook in the whiting fishery bycatch. The CWT
groups used to represent naturally spawning Snake River fall
chinook are limited to non-experimental, fingerling type
releases. only releases from the Lyons Ferry Hatchery are
incorporated in the Pacific Salmon commission and PFMC salmon
fishery models (Berkson 1991). There have been four observed
recoveries of Lyons Ferry fingerling type CWTs in the whiting
fishery. There were three additional recoveries of finqerlinq
type CWT groups from the Hagerman Hatchery, although these are
considered experimental type releases. All the CWTs were
•
30
recovered off the northern Oregon or Washinqton coasts during the
summer months.
Estimates of the distribution and relative abundance of Snake
River fall chinook were derived from recoveries of CWTs from the
1984 and 1985 brood year releases of the Lyons Ferry Hatchery
stock that is used as a surrogat~ for- naturally spawning Snake
River fall chinook. The recovery info~ation was recently
incorporated into a chinook harvest model used by the PFMC for
the first time in 1992 (CMWG 1990, 19911 PFMC 1992a) to assess
impacts of ocean salmon fisheries on chinook stocks, particularly
in the area north of Cape Falcon, Oregon (Fiqure 4). This same
model was used to evaluate the impact of ocean salmon fisheries
in the PFMC areas on Snake River fall chinook compared to the
1986-90 base period. The analysis provided the basis for the
biological opinion regarding 1992 PFMC ocean salmon fisheries
(NMFS 1992a).
One of the shortcomings of the analysis was the inability to
estimate the absolute abundance of Snake River fall chinook.
Without the appropriate stock scalars, it was not possible to
estimate the number of fish actually caught, relative
.
contribution to the various fisheries, or ocean escapement of
Snake River fall chinook (i.e., the number of mature fish
expected to return to the Columbia River mouth in 1992).
Following completion of the ocean opinion, a subsequent
.
biological assessment was developed regarding summer and fall
season fisheries in the Columbia River (CRTS 1992). This
assessment included an age-specific estimate of the ocean
escapement of Snake River fall chinook. This was the information
that was needed for scaling ocean abundance that was not
available prior to completion of the earlier analysis. Using the
new information, the initial abundance of Snake River fall
chinook was scaled and the model rerun using the 1992 pre-season
fishery structure. The model then provided estimates of the
catch of Snake River fall chinook by fishery.
The estimates of catch by fishery ,were aggregated into three
broad geographic areas to conform with estimates of salmon
bycatch in the groundfish fisheries. The three areas included
the west coast of Vancouver Island (representing the Canadian
fishery), a northern U.S. area including the U.S. portion of the
Vancouver INPFC area and the Columbia area, and a southern area
including the Eureka, Monterey, and conception areas. The catch
of naturally spawning Snake River fall chinook estimated by the
salmon harvest model was 1,776 in the Canadian area, 285 in the
U.S. north and 7 in the U.S. south.
•
•
31
The expected catches of chinook in ocean commercial,
recreational, and tribal salmon fisheries in Canada off the
southwest coast of Vancouver Island and the northern and southern
areas of the o.s. coast in 1992 are 300,000, 169,200 and 156,600,
respectively (PFMC 1992a). The resulting ratios indicate that
the contribution of Snake River fall chinook in the 1992 salmon
fisheries were approximately 1/170 (300,000/1,776 ~ 169), 1/600
(169,200/285 = 594) and 1/22,000 (156,600/7 = 22,371).
These ratios are used here to approximate the impact of bycatch
iri the groundfish fisheries on Snake River fall chinook. The
expected bycatch of salmon in the northern area whiting fishery
in 1992 is 5,081 (Table 7), which would include approximately
9 (5,081/594 = 8.6) Snake River fall chinook. It was estimated
that the bycatch of salmon in future o.s. whiting fisheries might
be as high as 11,000. If all of that bycatch were taken' in the
Columbia and Vancouver areas, the catch of Snake River fall
chinook could be as high as 19 (11,000/594 = 18.5). The
anticipated bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery in the northern
areas ranged from 5,000 to 8,000 indicating that as many as
13 (8,000/594 = 13.5) Snake River fall chinook might be taken in
the bottom trawl fishery. The relative abundance of Snake river
fall chinook in southern areas suggests that impacts from
groundfish fisheries in areas south of the Columbia area will be
negligible.
The contribution of Snake River fall chinook to the Canadian
fishery off th~ southwest coast of Vancouver Island is
substantially higher than that of the o.s. fisheries. It was
projected that the bycatch of salmon in the whiting fishery could
be as high as 14,000 in future years. This would result in an
estimated take of approximately 83 (14,000/169 = 82.3) Snake
River fall chinook.
Determining the impact of other Canadian groundfish fisheries on
Snake River fall chinook is more difficult. It is possible to
tabulate groundfish landings, but the effect of these fisheries
on Snake River fall chinook will depend to a large degree on
where the fish are caught. The fishery takes place in both the
Vancouver and Charlotte areas. A substantial portion of the
catch occurs in inside waters where the relative contribution of
Snake River fall chinook is likely quite low. There is no direct
information of bycatch rates, in Canadian fisheries or
contribution rates in particular areas. . The estimates for the
o.s. fisheries were based on expansions of effort data, which are
also unavailable. Given the absence of appli~able information,
no effort was made to estimate the impact on Snake River fall
32
chinook of Canadian qroundfish fisheries directed at species
other than whitinq.
It is important to qualify these estimates and point out some of
the underlyinq assumptions of the analysis. The basic assumption
is that the distribution of stocks taken in the salmon fisheries
is the same as that of the qroundfish fisheries. There are
several reasons to believe that this may not be the case. First,
althouqh very broad qeoqraphic areas have been defined, salmon
fisheries are not coincident in time or place with qroundfish
fishery. For example, bottom trawl fisheries take place year
around while salmon fisheries are restricted primarily to the
summe'r months. Second, the catch in the qroundfish fisheries is
composed primarily of immature aqe-two and aqe-three fish,
whereas the catch in salmon fisheries is composed primarily of
older aqe classes. Third, the analysis of relative contribution
is specific to the 1992 estimates of ocean abundance of all
stocks in the model and is therefore year-specific. Also, the
model itself is scaled b~sed on recovery data from only 2 brood
years. The estimates of-stock distribution in the salmon fishery
model will improve as the number of brood years in the model
increases. Finally, a new and untested procedure was used for
estimatinq the ocean escapement of Snake River fall chinook (CRTS
1992). The estimates of contribution rates derived from the
model are directly related to the forecast of ocean escapement.
Althouqh the assumption that the distribution of stocks in the
salmon fisheries is the same as that of the qroundfishfisheries
is problematic, there is no inherent reason to believe that the
relative impacts in the qroundfish fisheries will be more or less
than those of the salmon fisheries. The analysis, therefore,
provides a reasonable approximation of the likely maqnitude of
the bycatch that is based on the best available data.
Given the shortcominqs of the analysis, the estimates of the
impact of the bycatch on Snake River fall chinook are not
intended as point estimates, but are rather best viewed as a
qualitative judqement reqardinq the approximate maqnitude of the
impact on the stock of concern. The ,estimated bycatch of salmon
in all PFMC qroundfish fisheries is probably on the order of
10,000, and may be as hiqh as 20,000 in some years. The impact
on Snake River fall chinook is probably on the order of a few
tens of fish. It may be less, but is unlikely to be as many as
100. The impact from the Canadian whitinq fishery of Snake River
fall chinook is rouqhly comparable, perhaps somewhat hiqher than
that of the U.S. qroundfish fisheries; probably some tens of
fish, but likely less than 100.
•
33
VII. CUmulative Effects
CUmulative effects are those impacts of future non-Federal,
state, and local government and private actions that are
reasonably certain to occur within the area of Federal action
under review. No such effects are anticipated. Future Federal
actions, incluaing future ocean and inriver fisheries, and
renegotiation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, will be subject to
the consultation requirements of 50 CPR Part 402 and, therefore,
are not considered cumulative to the proposed action.
Consultations are anticipated regarding future in-river fisheries
and the renegotiation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
VIII. Conclusion
•
In this biological op1n10n, NMFS reviewed the available
_
information regarding the bycatch of salmon for each of the major
gear types. The review indicated that there were significant
interactions in the midwater whiting and bottom trawl fisheries.
For these gears, the magnitude and distribution of the bycatch of
salmon was estimated. The likely impact on each of the listed
salmon species was then reviewed in more detail. For the other
gear types, including shrimp trawls, pots,hook-and-line and
other miscellaneous net gear, there was little direct
information, but reason to believe that the gears would not take
significant numbers of salmon. Conclusions with respect to other
gear types are reviewed briefly after consideration of species
specific impacts due to midwater whiting and bottom trawl gear.
-~
A. Impacts of Trawl Fisheries
1. Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon
SRWRC are distributed primarily off the California coast. The
relative abundance of SRWRC in the Monterey and Eureka areas was
previously estimated to be approximately 1/1500 and 1/5500,
respectively. The contribution of SRWRCto catch in the Columbia
and Vancouver areas was not explicitly estimated, but would be
substantially lower than in the Eureka area. Management actions
taken in 1992 have effectively eliminated the whiting fishery
from the Monterey area and greatly reduced to expected catch in
the Eureka area. The bycatch of salmon in the Eureka area will
be reduced from the few thousand observed in recent years to a
few hundred in 1992. The prospects of impacting the SRWRC in
future years depends on-the distribution and magnitude of the
whiting fishery and bycatch rate.
However, for the foreseeable
34
future, continuing concerns for salmon stocks off the California
coast are likely to lead to the continuing use of management
actions to minimize bycatch in areas south of the Columbia area
as was done in 1992.
Information on the bycatch of salmon in the bottom trawl fishery
off the coast of southern Oregon and California is rather
limited. However, based on the available information, it was
estimated that the bycatch of salmon in these areas would be on
the order of 1,000 salmon per year. If all of the bycatch was
taken in the Monterey area, the area of highest relative
abundance, the estimated catch of SRWRC would still be less than
one per year. Given the above information, NMFS concludes that
continuing implementation of the PFMC groundfish FMP is not
likely to jeopardize the continue existence of SRWRC.
2. Snake River Sockeye Salmon
There is no information to suggest that Snake River sockeye are
harvested in Pacific coast groundfish fisheries. The likelihood
that any of the very few sockeye taken in groundfish fisheries
are from the Snake River is extremely remote. The number of
Snake River sockeye returning to the Columbia River is likely
quite small (probably on the order of a few tens of fish)
compared to the .i11ions of sockeye from other stocks that enter
the PFMC management area and pass primarily through the strait of
Juan de Fuca to the Fraser River. Given the above information,
NMFS concludes that continuing implementation of the PFMC
groundfish FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continue existence
of Snake River .ockeye salmon.
3. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon
Although chinook are the primary salmon species taken as ,bycatch
in the groundfish fisheries, there is little evidence to suggest
that Snake River spring/summer chinook are included in the
bycatch. The distribution of Snake River spring and summer
chinook is likely limited to the northern Oregon and Washington
coast since spring and summer chinook from the Snake River are
assumed to be north migrating stocks. There are no CWT
recoveries from these stocks in Pacific coast groundfish
fisheries. The available evidence from ocean salmon fisheries
also suggests that the spring and summer Snake River stocks are
not affected to any significant degree by fisheries in the PFMC
area (NMFS 1992a). Bycatch from other gear types has been
determined to be negligible. Given the lack of affirmative
'.
35
evidence that these stocks are significantly affected by salmon
fisheries in the PFMC area and the absence of evidence regarding
incidental takes in groundfish fisheries, HMFS concludes that
fishing conducted under the groundfish FMP is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of Snake River spring/summer
chinook salmon.
4. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon
•
The greatest effect of PFMC groundfish fisheries on Snake River
fall chinook will occur off the Washington and Oregon coast. It
was estimated that the rel~tive contribution of Snake River fall
chinook in northern (Vancouver and Columbia) and southern
(Eureka, Monterey and Conception) INPFC areas is approximately
1/600 and 1/22,000, respectively. These ratios were used to
estimate the impact of bycatch in the groundfish fisheries on
Snake River fall chinook. The expected bycatch of salmon in the
northern area whiting fishery in 1992 is 5,081 (Table 7), which
should include approximately 9 Snake River fall chinook. It was
estimated that the "bycatch of salmon in future u.S. fisheries
might be as high as 11,000. If all of that bycatch was taken in
the Columbia and Vancouver areas, the catch of Snake River fall
chinook could be as high as 19. The anticipated bycatch in the
bottom trawl fishery in the northern areas ranged from 5,000 to
8,000 indicating that as many as 13 Snake River fall chinook
might be taken in the bottom trawl fishery. The relative
abundance of Snake river fall chinook in southern areas suggests
that impacts from groundfish fisheries in areas south of the
Columbia area will be negligible.
The key assumption used in this analysis is that the distribution
of stocks in the salmon fisheries is the same as that of the
groundfish fisheries. There are a number of reasons which
suggest that this may not be the case, but there is no inherent
reason to believe that the relative impacts in the groundfish
fisheries will be either more or less than those of the salmon
fisheries. The analysis, therefore, provides a reasonable
approximation of the likely magnitude of the bycatch that is
based on the best available data.
•
Given the shortcomings of the available data, the estimated
impacts of bycatch on Snake River fall chinook are not intended
as point estimates, but are rather best viewed as a qualitative
judgement regarding the approximate magnitude of the impact on
the stock of concern. The estimated bycatch of salmon in all
PFMP qroundfish fisheries is probably on the order of 10,000,
36
perhaps as high as 20,000 per year. The impact on naturally
spawning Snake River fall chinook is probably on the order of a
few tens of fish. It may be less, but ,is unlikely to be as many
as 100.
Bycatch in the whiting fishery will account for roughly half of
the total salmon taken in groundfish fisheries. It is apparent
that the PFMC and fishing industry are mindful of the bycatch
problem and have taken management actions designed specifically
to reduce the bycatch of salmon. Management actions taken in
1992 to reduce bycatch were. implemented by emergency regulation.
The PFMC is currently developing Amendment 7 to the plan that
would provide them the authority to implement management measure
designed to reduce bycatch on a routine basis. Additionally, for
the past 2 years, the industry has voluntarily limited the
incidental take of salmon to 0.05 salmon/mt whiting, a rate that
is substantially below rates observed in most previous years
(Figure 5). Given 'the small magnitude of the catch of Snake
River fall chinook relative to other actions and the actions
taken to date to reduce bycatch, NMFS concludes that continuing
implementation of the PFMC groundfish FMP is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of Snake River fall chinook
salmon'.
B. Impacts of Other Gear Types
There is some observational data regarding the shrimp trawl
fishery from the 1985-87 discard study. A total of 247 shrimp
trawls were examined for bycatch, but no salmon were observed.
The bycatch of salmon in the pot fishery is assumed to be
essentially zero. Because of the pelagic, visually oriented
feeding strategy of salmon, it is unlikely that salmon would
enter a baited trap placed on the bottom.
There are several different hook-and-line gear configurations
including longlines fished on the bottom, various vertical
longlines, and jigs. It is unlikely that salmon would be taken
by baited hooks on longlines anchored to the bottom, because of
their general feeding habit. It is conceivable that salmon might
be taken on the vertical longline or jig operations. However,
based on personal communication with biologists involved in
managing these fisheries in each of the states and fishermen that
have been involved with these fisheries, it seems unlikely that
•
37
the bycatch of salmon is more than an occasional event which
would have negligible impact on the species of concern.
There have been a variety of localized setnet fisheries located
off t he California coast. The use of gillnets is prohibited by
the groundfish FMP north of 3S0N latitude (just north of San
Francisco Bay). In PFMC groundfish fisheries, sunken gillnets
have been used to target rockfish, but available information
indicates that impacts on salmon are negligible.
Given the above considerations and absence of information to the
contrary, NMFS concludes that the bycatch of salmon by the above
described gear types is unlikely to be more than an occasional
event that is unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence 'of
any of the listed salmon species.
IX. Reinitiation of Consultation
•
Consultation should be reinitiated if (1) the amount or extent of
taking specified in any incidental take statement is exceeded:
(2) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent
not previously considered: (3) the action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in the biological
opinion; or (4) a new species listed, or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the action. In addition, if
and when NMFS refines its methodology for determining whether
propose~ fisheries jeopardize listed Pacific salmonids in a way
that may significantly affect the analysis and conclusions of
this opinion, NMFS will reinitiate consultation.
x.
Conservation Recommendations
Conservation recommendations are discretionary measures suggested
to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat: to develop additional
information, or to assist Federal agencies in complying with
their obligations under section 7 of the ESA.
A.
•
PP.KC.ahou14 continue to pursue 4evelop.ent of the
groun4fiah 4ata collection progr...
~he
The PFMC has developed a draft plan for an observer program that
could be used to monitor vessels participating in groundfish
fisheries other than the at-sea whiting fishery ~hat is currently
38
covered by the NMFS observer program. . One objective of the
program will be collection of information pertaining to the
bycatch of salmon. The PFMC should pursue development and
funding of the observer program, and implement it as soon as
possible.
B. xaprove available estiaates regar4iDg salaoD bycatch iD
bottoa trawl risheries iD the southern IHPPC areas.
Observations regarding bycatch in bottom trawl fisheries were
concentrated in the Vancouver and Columbia areas with relatively
few observations to the south. The available information
suggests that bycatch in these areas is limited, but an effort
should be made to reevaluate this conclusion once the observer
program is in place or earlier based on other information if
possible.
C. cODtiDue to evaluate aD4 iaplemeDt aaDageaeDt aeasures
curreDtly use4·to aiDiai.e bycatch iD the whitiDg rishery iD
the Bureka aD4 MODterey areas.
Previous analysis of bycatch rate in the whiting fishery have
focused on the Eureka and Monterey areas. As a result, several
management action were implemented including restrictions related
to starting date, tIme of day, depth, and latitude. Efforts
should continue to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures.
Those that are considered effective in reducing bycatch rate
should be implemented in the future.
•
D. MODitor the bottoa trawl risheries ror chaDgiDg patterDs or
fishiDg activity.
The available information indicates that bycatch rates in the
bottom trawl fishery tend to be high during the winter months and
in nearshore areas. Broad scale fishing patterns should be
monitored in an effort to detect changes in the timing or
location of the fisheries. The effect of proposed management
actions should also be evaluated to avoid greatly increasing
fishing activity in nearshore areas during the winter months.
E. Seek a44itioDal iDforaatioD regar4iDg salaoD bycatch iD the
pot, hook-an4-liDe aD4 other gear type fisheries.
There is little information available regarding salmon bycatch in
the pot, hook-and-line, and other gear type fisheries. Although
these are relatively small scale fisheries and available
•
•
..
39
informationsuqqests that salmon encounters are minimal, efforts
should be made to confirm the conclusions drawn based on
available information. The gear types within this group most
likely to encounter salmon are setnets and the various types of
vertical lonqline gear.
F. Any Dew groun4fish fisheries ahoul4 be monitore4 for bycatch.
New fisheries proposed for development under the groundfish FMP
should be monitored to determine the relative magnitude of salmon
bycatch.
G. Pocus more attention on the analysis of bycatch in the
Columbia an4 Vancouver areas with respect to actions that
miqht be taken to re4uce bycatch of salmon.
Management actions in the south have tended to displace the
whiting fishery into the northern INPFC areas. Previous analyses
that have focused on the Eureka area may not be applicable to the
Columbia or Vancouver areas. The available information should be
reviewed to evaluate what actions could be used effectively to
reduce the bycatch in the northern areas. These actions may
differ from those used in the south.
H. Continue to evaluate available information reqar4inq the
4istribution an4 relative abun4ance of Snake River fall
chinook in IBPPC areas.
Information fro~ salmon management models was used to evaluate
the relative abundance of Snake River fall chinook in various
fishing areas. Salmon management models will be updated in the
near future and annually, thereafter. If there are substantial
changes in the assumed distribution of Snake River fall chinook,
the estimated impacts from the groundfish fisheries should be
reevaluated.
.
I. Bvaluate the assumption that the 4istribution of salmon
stocks in the salmon an4 groun4fish fisheries are aimilar.
A key assumption of the analysis regarding impacts on Snake River
fall chinook was that the relative abundance of stocks taken in
the salmon fisheries is similar to that of the qroundfish
fisheries. There are reasons to believe that th.is may not be the
case. The assumption should be evaluated by comparinq CWT
recovery information from ·qroundfish and salmon fisheries in
those time-area strata where the numbers of recoveries are
sufficient to permit the analysis.
40
J. Confirm estiaates of ocean escapaaent of Snake River fall
chinook.
The impact analysis for Snake River fall chinook was directly
related to the newly developed estimate of ocean escapement. If
the actual ocean escapement is substantially different, it may be
necessary to reevaluate the estimated impacts: of thegroundfish
fisheries on Snake River fall chinook.
•
•
•
•
...
#
•
41
XI. Incidental Take statement
A. Anticipated Incidental Take
section 7(b) (4) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides for
the issuance of an incidental take statement on the agency action
if the biological opinion concludes that the action is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. In such a situation, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) will issue an incidental take statement specifying
the impact of any incidental taking of endangered or threatened
species, providing for reasonable and prudent measures that are
necessary to minimize impacts, and setting forth the terms and
conditions with which the action agency must comply in order to
implement the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental
takings resulting from the agency action, including incidental
takings caused by activities authorized by the agency, are
authorized under the inciQental take statement only if those
takings are in compliance with the specified terms and
conditions.
•
SRWRC are distributed primarily off the California and southern
Oregon coast. The relative abundance of SRWRC was estimated to
be approximately 1/1500 and 1/5500 in the Monterey and Eureka
areas, respectively. Management actions applied to the whiting
fishery in 1992 in the Eureka and Monterey areas have effectively
reduced the anticipated bycatch to a few hundred salmon. It is
expected that efforts to minimize bycatch of salmon in these
areas will continue in the future. It is also expected that
approximately 1,000 salmon will be taken in the bottom trawl
fishery in areas off the California and southern Oregon coast in
present and future fisheries. The expected impact on SRWRC
depends on the assumed distribution of the bottom trawl bycatch,
but in any case would be less than one fish. The bycatch of
salmon in groundfish fisheries using other gear types managed
under the groundfish FMP are assumed to occur infrequently and,
thus, would not affect the estimated impact on SRWRC.
Sockeye salmon are rarely taken as bycatch in the groundfish
fisheries. Given the abundance of Snake River sockeye relative
to other stocks, the estimated impact on Snake River sockeye
salmon is considered negligible.
Although chinook are the primary salmon species taken as bycatch
in the groundfish fisheries, there is little evidence to suggest
that Snake River spring/summer chinook are included in the
bycatch. Given the lack of affirmative evidence that these
..
·
42
stocks are significantly affected by either salmon or groundfish
fisheries in the PFMC area, the estimated impact from the
groundfish FMP on Snake River spring/summer chinook is considered
negligible.
Of the listed stocks, Snake River fall chinook salmon are.t~e
species most likely to be impacted by the groundfish fisheries.
The qreatest impacts will occur in the whiting and bottom trawl
fisheries.
The data record regarding bycatch of salmon in the whiting
fishe'ry is sufficient to provide some understanding about the
likely range of bycatch and the kinds of management measures that
can be used to minimize the bycatch of salmon. In 1991 and 1992,
the industry adopted a voluntary quideline for bycatch of
0.05 salmon/mt whiting. In 1992, the PFMC adopted particular
management actions designed to minimize bycatch by emergency
requlation and are now developing Amendment 7 to the FMP that
would allow the Council to implement similar requlations on a
permanent basis. The bycatch rate in 1991 and the observed
bycatch rate to date in 1992 are substantially below the
0.05 target. For the purposes of this consultation,
0.05 salmon/mt of whiting was used to define the upper limit of
anticipated bycatch in the whiting fishery.
The expected bycatch of salmon in the Vancouver and Columbia area
whiting fishery in 1992 is approximately 5,100. This would
include approximately nine Snake River fall chinook. It was
estimated that the bycatch of salmon in future u.S. whiting
fisheries might be as high as 11,000, and that if all of that
bycatch were taken in the Columbia and Vancouver areas, the
bycatch of Snake River fall chinook could be as high as 19.
Because of the uncertainties related to these estimates, it is
more appropriate to characterize the expected impact on Snake
River fall chinook as a few tens of fish.
The estimated bycatch of salmon in the whiting fishery and
estimates of impacts on listed species are based on the
assumption that the bycatch rate in future fisheries will not
exceed 0.05 salmon/mt whiting (calculated on a annual and
coastwide basis). Therefore, pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the
ESA, HMFS authorizes the incidental take of salmon in the whiting
fishery of 0.05 salmon/mt whiting.
There is less information available regarding bycatch of salmon
in groundfish fisheries using gear types other than the midwater
trawls used in targeting whiting. It was estimated that 6,000 to
9,000 salmon have been taken in the bottom trawl fishery in
..
43
recent years and that 5,000 to 8,000 of these are likely to be
taken in the Vancouver and Columbia catch areas where Snake River
fall chinook are most likely to be impacted. The estimated
impact on Snake River fall chinook would be as high as 13,
although this was again intended as an approximate measure of
impact rather than a point estimate. Available information
indicates that salmon bycatch in groundfish fisheries using other
gear types is unlikely to be more than a rare event that would
not affect the estimated impact on Snake River fall chinook.
Setting incidental take limits in the bottom trawl fishery is
more problematic. In absence of a monitoring program, it is not
possible to assess directly an incidental take limit that would
normally' be expressed as some measure of salmon bycatch or
bycatch rate. It was estimated that as many as 9,000 salmon
would be taken annually in the bottom trawl fishery and that such
a take is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
of the listed species. Therefore, pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of
the ESA, NMFS ~uthorizes:a bycatch of 9,000 salmon per year •
•
This estimate of bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery is based on
an analysis of available information from 1985-1990. Because
,bycatch is not being monitored directly, expectations of bycatch
in future years are based on the assumption that the 'general
character of the fishery will not change substantially,
particularly in times and places where bycatch rates are assumed
to b e higher. ~f the fishery in future years changes
substantially in magnitude or character compared to 1985-1990,
and in particular, if there is increased catch in nearshore areas
or d uring the winter months or in the Eureka or Monterey areas,
conSUltation should be reinitiated.
Review of available information regarding salmon bycatch for
other groundfish gear types, including shrimp trawls, pots, hook
and-line gear and setnets used in PFMC area fisheries indicated
that salmon interactions are unlikely to be more than a rare
event and that the impacts on listed species will be negligible.
As a result, NMfS concludes that the taking of any of the listed
salmon species by these gear types is neither anticipated or
authorized.
B. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions for
Implementation
The estimated impacts included in the incidental take statement
for the whiting fishery are based, in part, on the assumed
bycatch rate of 0.05 salmon/mt. In order to evaluate whether
that assumption is valid for future fisheries, continued
r
•
44
•
monitoring of salmon bycatch in the whiting fishery is necessary.
until recently, the shorebased fishery has accounted for a
relatively small proportion of the total catch of whiting and was
not included in the monitoring program. The shorebased fishery
is'expanding. It is possible that fishing patterns and, thus,
bycatch rates for the shorebasedfishery differ from those of.the
at-sea processors. The monitoring efforts initiated in 1992 must
continue at a level sufficient to define the bycatch rate of the
shorebased fleet and any distinquishing patterns of'bycatch that
may become evident.
In addition to collecting bycatch information in the whiting
fishery, it is necessary to evaluate, at least monthly, the
projected annual total bycatch rate of the fishery. If at
anytime during the fishery, it is anticipated that the seasonal,
coastwide bycatc~ rate will exceed 0.05 salmon/mt whiting, then
conSUltation must be reinitiated and the PFMC must take action to
implement additional management measures to reduce the bycatch
rate such that the annual· authorized take limit can be met. If
and when it becomes apparent, based on analyses by either NMFS or
PFMC that management measures cannot adequately reduce the
bycatch rate to the prescribed level, conSUltation must be
reinitiated.
In 1992, a number of management measures were implemented that
were specifically designed to reduce the bycatch of salmon in the
Eureka and Monterey areas. These included a delayed opening
until April 15; no nighttime fishing, no at-sea processing south
of 42·N and no targeted harvest of whiting inside of 100 fathoms
in the Eureka area. Of these, the only management action that
will be specified as a condition of the incidental take statement
in this opinion is the restriction regarding targeted harvest
inside of 100 fathoms in the Eureka area. This provision is
specified because the available information indicates that
bycatch rates are generally higher in nearshore areas. It is not
applied to the rest of the coast because previous analyses of
depth related ~ffects in the whiting fishery were specific to the
Eureka area. A subsequent conservation recommendation requires
further analysis of depth effects and other measures that may be
used to reduce bycatch rates in the future.
TWo of the other measures used in 1992, including the delayed
opening and restriction to at-sea processing south of 42°N, are
not established here as a condition of the incidental take
statement because the principal effect is to displace the fishery
to the north rather than reduce bycatch rate. "Although these
measures clearly reduce bycatch in the Eureka and Monterey areas
and impacts on SRWRC, they have the undesired effect of
•
45
increasing bycatch in the Columbia and Vancouv"er areas. As a
result, impacts on Snake River fall chinook are higher. The
nighttime closure is not set as a condition because the analyses
provided to date do not clearly demonstrate the desired benefit
of reducing the bycatch rate. Further analysis of controls
related to time of day is suggested as a conservation
recommendation.
The bottom trawl fishery is not being monitored directly for
bycatch at this time.
The incidental take statement permits an
annual bycatch of 9,000 salmon, but assumes that the magnitude
and character of the fishery will not increase substantially,
particularly in those times and areas where bycatch rates are
assumed to be higher. In order to meet this assumed condition,
the PFMC must develop an annual summary that characterizes the
bottom trawl fishery and can thus be used to evaluate potential
changing trends in fishing patterns.
•
l'
~~L. $~
--,
A~'
------
----------~
-----
,
,
~
46
References
Berkson, J. 1991. Letter to Salmon Subcommittee of the
Scientific and statistical committee of the P~C. October 30,
1991. 4 p.
California. 1988. Cooperative Agreement Among California
Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service,
united states Bureau of Reclamation, and United states Fish and
wildlife Service to Implement Actions to Benefit Winter-Run
Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento River Basin. Signed by the four
agency Regional Directors on 5/20/88. 12 pp.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1989.
Description of winter Ocean Harvest Model. 28 pp.
Chinook Model Work Group (CMWG). 1990. Description and
preliminary documentation for a model of chinook fisheries.
October 19, 1990.
Chinook Model Work Group (CMWG).
report. February 21, 1991.
1991.
Chinook model status
Columbia River Technical Staffs (CRTS). 1992. Biological
assessment of the impacts of anticipated 1992 summer 'and fall
season Columbia River fisheries on listed Snake River species
under the Endangered Species Act. 14 p.
•
Dorn, M.W. and R.D. Methot. 1992. Status of the coastal Pacific
whiting resource in 1992. Stock Assessment Report to Pacific
Fishery Management Council. 60 p •
Erickson, D.L. ~nd E.L. pikitch. in prep. Incidental catch of
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in commercial bottom
trawls off the u.S. west coast. School of Fisheries, Univ. of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
Hallock, R.J. and F.W. Fisher. 1985. Status of the winter-run
chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, CDFG Anad. Fish Br.
Rept. 28 pp.
Marine Resources Division. 1987. Impacts of qi11 and trammel
net fisheries in central California. Report to the Legislature
and Legislative Analyst. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 24 p.
Unpublished. Available from CDFG, Monterey.
Matthews, G.M. and R.S. Waples. 1991. Status Review for Snake
River spring and summer chinook salmon. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-200, 75 p.
••
. .
47
Methot, R. 1992a. Biological assessment of salmon bycatch in
the pacific whiting fishery. 20 p.
Methot, R. 1992b. Biological assessment of salmon 'bycatch in _
the west coast bottom trawl fishery, July 1, 1992. 14 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1990. Section·7·
Consultation - Biological opinion: Amendment 4 of the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Management Plan. August 10, 1990. 16 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991a. Factors for
decline. A supplement to the notice of determination for Snake
River spring/summer chinook salmon under the Endangered Species
Act. NMFS, Environmental and Technical Services Division, 911
N.E. 11th Ave., Room 620, Portland OR. 72 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991b. Factors for
decline. A supplement to the notice of determination for Snake
River fall chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act.
NMFS, Environmental and Technical Services Division, 911 N.E.
11th Ave., Room 620, Portland OR. 55 p •
•
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991c. Section 7
Consultation - Biological Opinion: Pacific Coast whiting fishery
and modifications in structure of the fishery. November 26,
1991. 18 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1992a. section 7
Consultation - Biological Opinion: The 1992 fisheries conducted
under the Fishery Management Plan for the salmon fisheries off
Washington, Oregon, and California. May 1, 1992. 17 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1992b. Ad hoc
committee report on efforts to quantify decreases in mortalities
necessary to stabilize Snake River chinook salmon populations.
Appendix 1 to the bioloqicalopinion under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act on the 1992 operations of the Federal
Columbia River~ower system. 18 p.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Washington
Department of Fisheries (WDF). 1991. Status report--Columbia
River fish runs and fisheries, 1960-90. 154 p.
Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1992a. Preseason report
III: Analysis of Council-adopted management measures for 1992
ocean salmon fisheries. 27 p. (with appendices).
48
Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1992b. Council News:
summary of recent Council actions (July 15, 1992). 8. p.
Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1992c.
salmon fisheries. (with appendices).
A
Review of 1991 ocean
Pikitch, E. K., D. L. Erickson, and J. R. Wallace. 1988. ·An
evaluation of the effectiveness of trip limits as a management
tool. NOAA-NMFS-NWAFC Processed Report 88-27.
Pikitch, E. K., D. L. Erickson, J. R. Wallace, and J. R. Skalski.
1991. Final report of the 1990 west coast mesh size study.
Saltstonstall-Kennedy Grant No. NA90-AAH-SK699.
Salmon Technical Team (STT). 1992. Biological assessment of
impacts on Snake River salmon species from the salmon fisheries
off the coast of California , Oregon and Washington managed under
the Pacific Fishery Management Council's regulatory
recommendations for 1992. 8. p. Appendix in Pacific Fishery
Management Council. 1992. Preseason report III: Analysis of
Council-adopted management measures for 1992 ocean salmon
fisheries. 27 p.
•
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. corps). 1990. Life history,.
environmental requirements, and factors contributing to the
decline of winter-run chinook salmon in California. Draft
Biological Data Report for the Sacramento Bank Protection
Project. 38 pp.
Vogel, D.A. 1985. FWS letter (7/5/85) to Edward Lorentzen on
the status of winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River.
18 pp.
Waples, R.S., O.W. Johnson and R.P. Jones, Jr. 1991a. Status
review for Snake River sockeye salmon. u.S. Cep. Commer., NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-195, 23 p.
Waples, R.S. R.P. Jones Jr., B.R. Beckman, and G.A. Swan. 1991b.
Status review for Snake River fall chinook salmon. u.S. Dep.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-201, 73 p.
Wild, P.W. 1990. The central California experience: A case
history of California halibut set net laws and regulations.
Pages 321-339 in C.W. Haugen, ed. The C~lifornia halibut,
Paralichthys californicus. resource and fisheries. Calif. Dept.
Fish and Game Bull. 174.
•
.-
•
.
49
Catch of Pacific Whiting in Canadian
and PFMC Area Fisheries
350~----~--~---------------------------'
~Canada
300
-i
II u.s.
'0
•
250
::s
o
~200
II:»
c
E
~
150
50
o
86
70
76
80
85
80
Year
Fiqure 1.
The catch of Pacific whitinq in Canadian and
fisheries.
u.s.
•
50
Foreign, JVand Domestic Catch
of Pacific Whiting (metric tons)
250~------------------------------------~
~200~--------------------------------A---~
"D
i
!
g°150~--------~------------------~~---+-H
CI
C
1100~~--~-------------------r~------~~
o
i
50~------~~~------~~~--~------~-H
77
78 78 80 81
82
83 84
85 86 87 88 89 80 91
Year
- Foreign
+ Joint Venture '* Domestic
Figure 2. The catch of Pacific whiting in the PFMC area by
the foreign, joint venture and domestic fisheries.
•
1
•
.4
•
"'"
51
Salmon Bycatch in the PFMC Area
Pacific Whiting Fishery
50~----------------------------------~
...40
"g
I
::I
•
..
~30
c
0
i20
(IJ
15
0
Z10
o
77 78 78 80 81
82 83 84 85 88 87 88 89 90 91
Year
Figure 3. Salmon bycatch in the
fishery •
•
u.s.
Pacific whiting
.
,';
.
,
to
52
PSMFC
INPFC
~~
-~...
•
~.t
~~
.
3D .~ ~~'1f
AlII'
.~~
'~
~.
50° N
I
I wa,.
•.
!---~----
.~'"
r(..
lit·
_1
~ ~~Seattle
1-0-- --I-----.'"--~' \
~~
WA
'i\..
I
~Columbfa
I~
I--...- .... -.'"----."'--~
OR
~218
"'--,..----- i-<
1--+--
t-2A
l._._._
~
~-1--
\
Eureka
~1C
I
~-.
!
~-- --t-- "-------(
40° N
r\
(
~
Monterey
-- -----35° N
",r
-
I
I
~ Conception
-
--~-.
OR
~
'.
!-- ---- .~.-.-.____ I
~--
~:c.
r\
CA
(
"r
~1B
~San
\ .. ~San
Francisco
Francisco
-- !------ ~
d.
cape Falcon
7
'.,
CA
\..
,,
~-.
100-- 1'0-
r\
--- ioo-_ -
I)
~~
~
1-1A
I-
1--- 100-
Figure 4.
---_. -
j
\...
l>
~----.
WA
('
j
~--
Seattle
3A
~--f.----.
__ ,
"'.. '"
4h
. -
l738
~2C
j~
.
..
~4.
- -- ~----- --,~-~""\9.
~ ~.
3C
~
..
.
r
...
~~
~
•
~ vancouver'~
.
'~
50° N
--1-- !-- --,--1---
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and
International North Pacific Fisheries Commission
catch areas.
!--
~
",
-
•
53
Salmon Bycatch ,Rate in the
Pacific Whiting Fishery
No. Salmon/mt WhHlng
0.6~------------------------------------~----~
0.4~------------------------------------------~
•
0.3 ~---------------------------I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
0.2 ~----------------------I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1
0.1 .........- - - - 1
77 78 78 80 81
82 83 84 85 88 87 88 89 80 81
Year
II Foreign D Joint Yenture
Figure 5.
•
~ Dome.tlc
Bycatch rate of salmon in the Foreign, joint venture
and domestiQ whitinq fisheries. The horizontal line
indicates relation to 0.05 salmon/mt whitinq bycatch
rate standard •
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2010-07-06 |
| File Created | 2010-07-06 |